What The Anti-Kelos Want

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:13:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Kevin Drum ~~does not understand~~ discusses what the anti-Kelo forces want:

Three years ago, . . .Kelo v. New London [was decided.] . . . Here in California, though, nobody seems to have the horse sense to get it right. Two years ago the lunatic brigade offered up Proposition 90, which not only restricted eminent domain but also tried to enshrine a longtime wet dream of the property rights movement: demanding government compensation for any restriction on land use. . . .Prop 90 failed. Big surprise. But not by much: if its supporters had just offered a clean eminent domain initiative, it might have won.

More...

So this year they're back. And guess what? They haven't learned their lesson. They're still stuck on offering a "Kelo-plus" initiative. This time it's Prop 98, which not only limits eminent domain but also phases out rent control, probably eliminates affordable housing laws, prevents courts from giving any special deference to state agency findings, increases eminent domain payouts, and prohibits laws that "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner" — a deliberately vague statement that has the potential to wipe out an immense swath of environmental and land use regulations.

Kevin does not get it. The anti-Kelos do not care about that poor person's single family home. They never did. They want what Prop 98 asks for. Kelo is the Trojan Horse. The real agenda has always been dismantling government regulation. Drum and many so called progressive anti Kelos have never understood this.

My views on Kelo were expressed here. My representation of Wal-Mart was disclosed and the disclosure of my personal and professional information was rationalized as a "conflict," as a result of my expression of my personal views on Kelo. for the record, CostCo is much more dependent on eminent domain than Wal-Mart, but at any rate, the views stand on their own.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< On Electability and How the Presidential Race Has Changed | Polls Can Be Funny >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What The Anti-Kelos Want | 50 comments (50 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

But There Are (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by The Maven on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:20:12 PM EST

at least two distinct groups of anti-Kelos out there: the ones you describe here who are vehemently opposed to any government interference with their claimed private property rights, but also those who are legitimately concerned about the use of eminent domain to take land (regardless of whether reasonable compensation is given) for the significant benefit of a private developer, and where the public benefit is next to nil.

Clearly, the California examples belong to the former category, but in Brooklyn, those who've been opposed to Bruce Ratner's massive Atlantic Yards development project have sought (generally in vain, since the Kelo decision) to hold the parties to the regularly applicable standards regarding zoning/land use, environmental impact, use of state money, etc. The progressives here have been on the side of strong enforcement of regulations, whereas Kelo smoothed the path for the use of a quasi-public authority (the Empire State Development Corp.) to take title of the land before transferring it to Ratner's organization.

The Supreme Court currently has the petition for a possible grant of a writ of certiorari pending from the lawsuit challenging this use of eminent domain, asking that the Court revisit some of the aspects of Kelo. Papers in opposition to the petition are to be filed on May 23, so there's a good chance that we might know before the end of the Term whether the Court will take up the issue. I personally doubt that the case will be accepted, but sometimes the Court can be unpredictable.

Just because some of the most vocal opponents of Kelo come from the libertarian right does not mean that there cannot also be opponents who disagreed with the effects of the decision for progressive reasons.

I am (none / 0) (#38)
by Wile ECoyote on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:24:33 PM EST

interested:
"Libertarian Right" Please explain. Libertarians are to the right because: Individualism? Private Property? Free speech?


: As opposed to the libertarian left (none / 0) (#39)
by Molly Bloom on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:26:14 PM EST

: It's how you get to libertarianism.... (none / 0) (#50)
by kdog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:21:44 AM EST

I came from the left turned on by more freedom, others come from the right turned on by less taxes.
Whatever gets you there is fine by me...:)

You've piqued my interest (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:15:44 PM EST

Can you explain this:

CostCo is much more dependent on eminent domain than Wal-Mart

???

Wal-Mart has generally built away from (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:24:27 PM EST

built up areas and thus buys land cheaply. Eminent domain is costly under any circumstance.

Costco has always been more urban oriented and required governments to take land for their use,

Disclosure, I represent Wal-Mart.


And (none / 0) (#5)
by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:30:50 PM EST

am a stockholder of Wall-Mart. :)

Wayyyyyyyyyy back, too.

My funny stock story is that my grandfather who invested met this guy who tried to talk him into investing in chain grocery stores. Grand-dad didn't like the guy. Thought he was a flake.

That guy established Krogers. :)

So.....my grandfather did invest in Sam.

As Obama says, "I can no more divorce myself from Wall-Mart than I could my own family."

And that's the serious truth of the matter. Dang, that stock just keeps on performing!


: This is a painful reminded of that (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:05:04 PM EST

cold call I got so many years ago: $5 for a share of WD 40.

Gotcha (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:34:06 PM EST

Costco is indeed for urban elitists like me. ;-)


No Trader Joe's is for urban elitists (none / 0) (#21)
by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:41:46 PM EST

I thought that was the role of (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:48:59 PM EST

Whole Foods.


Trader Joe's (none / 0) (#28)
by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:56:05 PM EST

is owned by the German Wall-Mart guy, that is the sweet irony. The creative class puts down poor people that shop at Wall Mart, but they just gobble up Trader Joe's with the fake folksy image, owned by Mr. Albrecht who put out of business most of the small groceries in Europe. Yeah for progress, but they do sell arugala.


TJs is Non-Union (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by daryl herbert on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:28:52 PM EST

That's how they can afford the low prices.

Put your workers in Hawaiian shirts, carry exotic health foods, tell people you are progressive -> people will believe you, because they want to believe.


When the grocery workers strike (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:30:57 PM EST

was happening in southern California at Ralphs, Vons, etc., suddenly everyone flocked to Trader Joes, which was really happy about that.


: Those who Honored the Strike (none / 0) (#46)
by daryl herbert on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:10:12 PM EST

by refusing to shop Albertson's (b/c Albertson's workers were only getting ~$18/hr + certain benefits) were giving their business to TJ's (~$12/hour)
Oops.

It's change! (none / 0) (#43)
by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:40:58 PM EST

And two-buck Chuck. (none / 0) (#31)
by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:58:52 PM EST

Interesting info. Chipolte is owned by MacDonald's. Arby's is about to absorb Wendy's. What next. Oh, and Whole Foods is absorbing Henry's.


Rezko and Trader Joes, are pet peeves... (none / 0) (#35)
by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:06:54 PM EST

The Next Wallmart

The American Cousin


: Ha. (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:10:11 PM EST

Aldi, right? (none / 0) (#33)
by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:02:42 PM EST

Trader Joes (none / 0) (#22)
by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:43:48 PM EST

is not only my fave, but it's where I want to work. :)

(It's a downright joke among my age. We ALL want to work for Trader Joes.)


heh (none / 0) (#24)
by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:46:39 PM EST

I just bought an insect infested bag of frisee salad from TJ, so they're on my sh*t list.


Frissee should not be bagged. (none / 0) (#30)
by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:58:36 PM EST

No produce should be plasticized or contained. Personal pet peeve if I cannot look for the bugs, will not buy it.


: Yeah, yeah (none / 0) (#32)
by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:00:12 PM EST

I like the convenience. I don't debone my own fish either.

Another reason anti-Kelo and anti-Walmart (none / 0) (#8)
by AF on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:39:22 PM EST

don't mix is that urban unions and community groups have had lots of success keeping Walmart out of cities through the political process. They don't really need constitutional law.


: Or state or national statutes (none / 0) (#9)
by AF on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:40:51 PM EST

That has been one of the criticisms (none / 0) (#13)
by myiq2xu on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:54:14 PM EST

of Walmart - they pull business away from existing retail zones.


I do not comment on Wal-Mart issues (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:56:28 PM EST

I have "come out" (none / 0) (#25)
by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:46:50 PM EST

now as a Wall-Mart stockholder, but I do confess. I hate shopping there.

It's way too taxing for me. It's too big. It's too much like the dollar store. I can't rely upon them to carry the basic stuff.

But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the stock returns.

So please, don't take this as a non-endorsement.

But on a personal level?

I hit Wall-Mart for certain stuff.

Oddly enough, I find all my Weight Watchers products there.

It's great on some stuff that my other stores are not good about carrying.

Wall-Mart isn't the enemy. That's stupid thinking.


: It isn't a friend either (none / 0) (#47)
by cawaltz on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:52:28 PM EST

Its a corporate entity that exists for profit.
I worked there for three LONG years. First as a cashier and then as a CSM. I thought the military was a bureaucracy. Walmart has the military beat.

A friend (none / 0) (#2)
by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:16:56 PM EST

pointed this same proposition out to me recently.

Deady!

BTD - This story is posted twice.... (none / 0) (#4)
by Annie M on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST

at least on my computer it looks that way...

: It was (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:33:44 PM EST

Thanks.

Yet another area in which McCain's (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:41:29 PM EST

Supreme Court nominations may have great effect.

P.S. How funny you included a poll in the DK posting.

Eminent Domain is poorly understood (none / 0) (#11)
by myiq2xu on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:43:14 PM EST

These propositions are advertised to protect the "little guy" but they are really intended to help the big money interests.

"Telling me I can't pollute my land or destroy the habitats of endangered species is a land use restriction and I should be compensated."

Anti government (none / 0) (#12)
by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:44:06 PM EST

This proposition is basically designed to take away all the tools local governments have used in California to create and preserve affordable housing.

Particularly this targets inclusionary zoning which is a requirement in Redevelopment law in California that a percentage of the tax increment generated, has to be used to build affordable housing.

Second, it attacks rent control ordinances of not just regular housing but also mobile homes. Mobile homes house thousands of seniors and these people have been trying to get rid of rent controls for years.

: Kelo (none / 0) (#16)
by Wile ECoyote on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:07:32 PM EST

is anti-individual.

Can they do that? (none / 0) (#15)
by dianem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:56:29 PM EST

It seems to me that the California courts would overturn this in a heartbeat because it was vague and misleading and possibly even conflicts with our constitution, which gives people certain rights, including the right to regulate their communities.

I suspect this is just a gimmick to get right-wingers to the polls on election day. Anti-gay marriage has been done to death here, and anti-choice legislation doesn't go over as well as it does in the South, but property issues are BIG.

: I seriously doubt (none / 0) (#17)
by vigkat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:19:09 PM EST

The initiative would pass muster with the courts even if the voters fail to understand that it is not intended to protect the little guy and vote in favor of it.

You can win the battle & lose the war (none / 0) (#18)
by wurman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:19:22 PM EST

The Oregon dos-i-do, right-about reversal of Measure 37 is an interesting variant of this. Wikipedia simple summary here. Oregonians voted in favor of restricting land use "takings" before they voted against it.

A humorous result of this is that there are many land-use reactionaries still a-waiting payments for the "takings." They won. However the legislature, county commissions & city councils have never funded the accounts to make restitution. So sue us . . . again . . . !

According to Wikipedia (none / 0) (#27)
by daryl herbert on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:54:45 PM EST

(I am always loathe to start a comment that way)

According to Wikipedia, Oregonians scaled back 37/39 somewhat when they passed prop 49, but those measures still largely remain in effect.

The drafters of 37 anticipated government nonpayment by stating that gov't had 2 years to pay. If no payment is made -> the landowner can go back to using his property in a way the gov't doesn't want. So the gov't's refusal to pay doesn't hurt the property owners very much. They get what they want (which is use of their land, not money).


: Correct . . . however (none / 0) (#49)
by wurman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:58:23 AM EST

The Oregon & Federal agencies have been going back & applying the original ordnances, statutes & regulations which are no longer superceded by 37, which = stalemate. It also, effectively, bought time to find other "stuff" not exempted by the original measure. Often, a landowner's mis-use was stymied by, say, OR Fish & Wildlife; however, 37 couldn't over-ride Fed rules, so the delay allowed folks to identify & apply the correct US Code at a later date.

Proposition 98 would (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:24:33 PM EST

amend the CA Constitution:

PROP 98

Of course, if passed, that amendment would be subject to judical review. Single subject,etc.

Initiatives are for the rich (none / 0) (#23)
by daryl herbert on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:44:42 PM EST

and the powerful.

If people got together and made an initiative to get rid of Kelo-style land grabs for private use, and nothing else, it would pass with a landslide.

But it would still take a lot of effort to put together. And it would only benefit ordinary California families.

Which means that anyone who invested the time and money to bring it about would really want to tack on a few pet projects to make it worthwhile to themselves.

Describing the people behind this initiative as "anti-Kelos," I think, is wrong. They are merely parasites who want to use anti-Kelo sentiment to get their own agenda passed.

The real anti-Kelos are the masses who are opposed to land grabs for private use, who aren't represented by the writers of this initiative, and aren't being represented by the (largely Democratic) state legislature. We're a silent, angry majority. Hopefully, though, not angry enough to pass this particular initiative.

Upon further reflection, it doesn't (none / 0) (#29)
by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:56:25 PM EST

seem to me that a CA initiative tightly confined to overturning Kelos would have the backing of big money here. Example: City of San Diego used direct condemnation to clear out the area where the baseball park was built. Now the wealthy developers are having building very expensive condo highrises around the park. Too bad the market tanked.

maybe means well but not too smart (none / 0) (#37)
by pluege on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:11:15 PM EST

kevin drum never was the sharpest tack in the shed. it was bad enough when he supported the Iraq invasion but when he supported the "surge" so "republicans could get it out of their system", that's when I put him in the dustbin of not worth reading.

Republicans support the war (none / 0) (#42)
by daryl herbert on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:32:34 PM EST

more today than just before the "surge" started.

The perception among many Republicans is that the surge worked. McCain needs those Republicans to vote for him if he has any chance of winning (the get-out-now Republicans have already defected to Obama/Clinton)


That drum was wrong again wasn't the point (none / 0) (#48)
by pluege on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:16:07 PM EST

it wouldn't matter if the surge worked or didn't, that drum's reason for supporting it was:

so incredibly callous of those that would be killed as a result of the surge
about the stupidest reason I've ever heard for committing troops

was more that I could take of drum's idiocy. I haven't been back and put no stock in anything he says.


Actually (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:41:41 PM EST

He does. I talked to him about this and he made it clear to me he gets it. thus my change.


: Ah, but did he "get it" after reading (none / 0) (#45)
by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:55:33 PM EST

your post or before?